This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Waterygrave (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 28 January 2010 (→Protected in violation of policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:34, 28 January 2010 by Waterygrave (talk | contribs) (→Protected in violation of policy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tosh.0. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tosh.0 at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Comedy Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Television Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The introduction sounds like it's a promotion of the show, Tosh.0. It should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.12.210 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it links to the right Mike Gibbons. That is, unless zombies are allowed to be executive producers nowadays. --76.117.110.236 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would have to agree, i have removed the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.42.117 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we need several more "no sources" banners on this page. I didn't notice till... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.100.182 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the style of...
Currently the page states "In the style of Web Soup. This seems a bit inacurate considering Web Soup was developed completely independently and actually started days after Tosh.0? You could argue it's in the style of the original Soup show, or that around the net segment of Attack of the Show, but considering it started before and has signifigantly higher ratings than Web Soup, the description seems wrong. If no one objects, I'll change it. Iarann (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This Page is about to get Covered in Shit Edits
On his show today the Tosh guy invited his viewers to edit the Tosh.0 Misplaced Pages page, and announced that he's going to read the funniest edits next week. Just giving you bros the heads up. 8bit (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Protected in violation of policy
From Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Semi-protection :
- "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred,"
So why is this page already protected when there has been no vandalism? kenj0418 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was vandalism, you just can't see it. It's been deleted. Q 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw vandalism before the lock was applied. Check the page history. 8bit (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- An accurate but unsourced description of his wardrobe, a good faith typo that causes a problem with the citation displaying, and a the addition of a trivia section. Boy, is it just me or has the quality of "vandalism" really declined in Misplaced Pages recently?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Onorem.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
He asked us to vandalize it. I swear! user:waterygrave
- While that is true, he does not own this page. If there were facts/information on this page that he wanted removed, then he could do ask for them to be removed. But he is not allowed to ask people to vandalize "his" page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What Mr. Tosh asked for really doesn't matter. Articles aren't left open for blatant vandalism just because someone affiliated with the topic asked for it. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but what then exactly are you protecting? The article is barely a stub and one would think that a comedy would have a little more leeway for levity. Why not let it run it's course and let the "cooler heads" amongst edit for veracity, while preserving the comedic nature? waterygrave —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
- This is so supposed to be an encyclopedic page, and thus, is not meant to have the type of edits that he asked for. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but what then exactly are you protecting? The article is barely a stub and one would think that a comedy would have a little more leeway for levity. Why not let it run it's course and let the "cooler heads" amongst edit for veracity, while preserving the comedic nature? waterygrave —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
Man... Some people here are just asking to be ridiculed on a basic cable channel. Anyway, here's a thought that will likely get shouted down: Why not leave it open for a couple days, let the people have their fun, then close it and revert it to it's present status? Shostie (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! Why not let people have some fun? Waterygrave (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Should be perma-protected anyway
Seeing as this is a WP:BLP-related article, the page should be semi-protected indefinitely until flagged revisions are implemented. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- How is this wp:BLP related? it's a TV show with a host. Are we now considering every talk show or hosted show as falling under the umbrella of WP:BLP now? That's news to me. Nefariousski (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)